de Cruz v. Panizza
Filing
38
ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting Defendants' 36 Motion for the Court to screen the second amended complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
GERALD DEAN de CRUZ,
Case No.
15-cv-1930-TEH
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER
9
10
A. PANIZZA,
Dkt. No. 36
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this
14
pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
15
dismissed and closed at screening, but Plaintiff filed an appeal.
16
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded
17
the case.
18
the access to courts claim but remanded the case to consider
19
Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant improperly opened and read
20
his legal mail.
21
Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint with additional
22
claims and Defendants.
23
screen the second amended complaint.
The case was
The Circuit found that the Court properly dismissed
The Court reopened the case and ordered service.
Defendants have requested the Court
24
I
25
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of
26
cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity
27
or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
28
1915A(a).
28 U.S.C. §
The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss
1
the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint
2
“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
3
relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a
4
defendant who is immune from such relief.”
5
Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally
6
construed.
7
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
8
1990).
9
Id. § 1915A(b).
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010);
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements:
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)
12
that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under
13
the color of state law.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
14
15
(1) that a right secured by the
II
The Court previously ordered service on Defendant A. Panizza
16
for the claim that he opened and read Plaintiff’s confidential
17
legal mail.
18
that Defendants Polanco and Mithcell were part of a conspiracy to
19
deny Plaintiff’s inmate appeals and Defendant Davis is liable as
20
a supervisor.
21
Plaintiff repeats these allegations and also argues
Plaintiff is informed there is no constitutional right to a
22
prison administrative appeal or grievance system.
23
Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855
24
F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988).
25
combination of two or more persons who, by some concerted action,
26
intend to accomplish some unlawful objective for the purpose of
27
harming another which results in damage.
28
Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 856 (9th Cir. 1999).
See Ramirez v.
A civil conspiracy is a
2
Gilbrook v. City of
To prove a civil
1
conspiracy, the plaintiff must show that the conspiring parties
2
reached a unity of purpose or common design and understanding, or
3
a meeting of the minds in an unlawful agreement.
4
liable, each participant in the conspiracy need not know the
5
exact details of the plan, but each participant must at least
6
share the common objective of the conspiracy.
7
Id.
To be
Id.
“In a § 1983 or a Bivens action – where masters do not
8
answer for the torts of their servants – the term ‘supervisory
9
liability’ is a misnomer.
Absent vicarious liability, each
Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
liable for his or her own misconduct.”
12
U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (finding under Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
13
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
14
Civil Procedure, that complainant-detainee in a Bivens action
15
failed to plead sufficient facts “plausibly showing” that top
16
federal officials “purposely adopted a policy of classifying
17
post-September-11 detainees as ‘of high interest’ because of
18
their race, religion, or national origin” over more likely and
19
non-discriminatory explanations).
20
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
A supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing
21
of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or
22
(2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's
23
wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.
24
Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Starr v.
25
Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)).
26
also show that the supervisor had the requisite state of mind to
27
establish liability, which turns on the requirement of the
28
particular claim — and, more specifically, on the state of mind
3
Henry A. v.
A plaintiff must
1
required by the particular claim — not on a generally applicable
2
concept of supervisory liability.
3
Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1071 (9th Cir. 2012).
4
Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient allegations against
5
the supervisor defendants.
6
Oregon State University
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Polanco spoke to him about
7
his inmate appeal and said he would grant it but instead denied
8
the appeal.
9
Plaintiff his appeal was cancelled because Plaintiff previously
Plaintiff states that Defendant Mitchell told
refused to be interviewed, which Plaintiff states was false.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Plaintiff’s allegations against Polanco and Mitchell fail to
12
state a claim.
13
administrative appeal system and Plaintiff has failed to
14
demonstrate that there was any conspiracy between these
15
Defendants.
16
as a supervisor, based on the caselaw set forth above.
17
There is no constitutional right to a prison
Nor has Plaintiff shown that Warden Davis is liable
The new Defendants are dismissed with prejudice from this
18
action.
19
claim that he opened and read Plaintiff’s confidential legal
20
mail.
21
to exhaust this claim, Defendant must file the appropriate
22
motion.
The case continues against Defendant A. Panizza for the
To the extent that Defendant argues Plaintiff has failed
23
24
25
26
27
28
III
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as
follows:
1.
Defendant’s request for screening (Docket No. 36) is
GRANTED.
2.
The action continues on the claim that Defendant Panizza
4
1
opened and read Plaintiff’s confidential legal mail.
2
Defendants are DISMISSED.
3
Service (Docket NO. 29) which remains in effect.
4
3.
All other
The parties shall review the Order of
It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case.
5
Plaintiff must keep the court informed of any change of address
6
by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of
7
Change of Address.”
8
in a timely fashion.
9
dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
He also must comply with the court's orders
Failure to do so may result in the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/15/2017
13
________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
14
15
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.15\Dean1930.ord.docx
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?